Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

CP and Entente Game Balance

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I >> CP and Entente Game Balance Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/18/2021 1:03:54 AM   
ThisEndUp

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 6/24/2020
Status: offline
Hello all,

I have noticed that most of the proposed changes on this forum tend to be in favour of buffing up the CP, either directly or indirectly. This made me curious about the current game balance. Do most games end in an Entente victory? Since it is a game, I assume that a 50-50 win rate for either side would be the ideal balance.

I also ask because I find that the CP are the easier faction to play with, so I do have a touch of concern about balancing too far in their direction. Of course, this is just one opinion. I would appreciate it if everyone put forth theirs as well, so that a better overall understanding could be reached.
Post #: 1
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/18/2021 3:43:51 AM   
Patrat


Posts: 107
Joined: 11/17/2016
Status: offline
I don't play MP, but as far as SP goes, all I can say is playing as entante against the AI CP at the highest level of difficulty ain't easy. Lol

You basically better not make any major, or even more than a couple of minor mistakes, or you are doomed.

< Message edited by Patrat -- 1/18/2021 3:45:56 AM >

(in reply to ThisEndUp)
Post #: 2
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/18/2021 3:56:14 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 3858
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp

Hello all,

I have noticed that most of the proposed changes on this forum tend to be in favour of buffing up the CP, either directly or indirectly. This made me curious about the current game balance. Do most games end in an Entente victory? Since it is a game, I assume that a 50-50 win rate for either side would be the ideal balance.

I also ask because I find that the CP are the easier faction to play with, so I do have a touch of concern about balancing too far in their direction. Of course, this is just one opinion. I would appreciate it if everyone put forth theirs as well, so that a better overall understanding could be reached.


Single Player or Multi Player? I've never won as CP in MP. Could you list the specific changes you are speaking of?

Bulgarian Gambit is not really an advantage for CP just a balance to prevent a cheat really.

Subs are for both.
Artillery is for both.



_____________________________


(in reply to ThisEndUp)
Post #: 3
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/18/2021 4:03:18 AM   
shri

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp

Hello all,

I have noticed that most of the proposed changes on this forum tend to be in favour of buffing up the CP, either directly or indirectly. This made me curious about the current game balance. Do most games end in an Entente victory? Since it is a game, I assume that a 50-50 win rate for either side would be the ideal balance.

I also ask because I find that the CP are the easier faction to play with, so I do have a touch of concern about balancing too far in their direction. Of course, this is just one opinion. I would appreciate it if everyone put forth theirs as well, so that a better overall understanding could be reached.



I have played 6 games so far, 3 CP and 3 Entente.
Lost 3 (first as Entente was my first MPP), won 2 as Entente with ease, 1 game as CP i was slightly winning when some problems occurred and we stopped.
2 games as CP i decisively lost.

Points about proposed changes asked -
1. Italy getting Trentino for Free is a glitch, never did happen historically, just being called to rectify.
2. Same with Bulgarian gambit. (It is seriously A-Historical to assume a country wouldn't even Mobilise seeing 300k enemy right next door with intent to invade).
3. Artillery power reduction is going to affect all sides.

(in reply to ThisEndUp)
Post #: 4
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/18/2021 4:06:18 AM   
shri

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/20/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp

Hello all,

I have noticed that most of the proposed changes on this forum tend to be in favour of buffing up the CP, either directly or indirectly. This made me curious about the current game balance. Do most games end in an Entente victory? Since it is a game, I assume that a 50-50 win rate for either side would be the ideal balance.

I also ask because I find that the CP are the easier faction to play with, so I do have a touch of concern about balancing too far in their direction. Of course, this is just one opinion. I would appreciate it if everyone put forth theirs as well, so that a better overall understanding could be reached.


Single Player or Multi Player? I've never won as CP in MP. Could you list the specific changes you are speaking of?

Bulgarian Gambit is not really an advantage for CP just a balance to prevent a cheat really.

Subs are for both.
Artillery is for both.




I won twice as CP, but lucky both times, my Servian attacks worked (this is pure luck) and my opponents didn't go all out against Austria in 1914 using the Russian sledgehammer and thus gave Austria breathing space.

Without that breathing space i would have surely lost as CP. Austria is bad as it was Historically, but Italy and Russia are buffed in game.
Serbia buff i can understand because they did pull miracles in 1914 against the Austrians.

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 5
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/18/2021 4:13:16 AM   
shri

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/20/2017
Status: offline
I would list out the Entente advantages in game (as of current version) compared to Historic situation-
1. Schlieffen isn't countered by useless Plan XVII, French pull back forces and thus are stronger.
2. Bulgarian Gambit knocks out a key minor for CP.
3. Loss of Trentino despite dug in corps placed in turn 1 is impossible to recover.

The game's real force multiplier is artillery and artillery shells and thus it makes a problem as WW1 artillery becomes stronger than WW2 artillery due to more shells and more hitting power. Late 1915 seems like 1918 in game.

(in reply to shri)
Post #: 6
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/18/2021 4:49:16 AM   
Pocus


Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/22/2004
Status: offline
I'm seeing the same trend, playing a SP game against veteran level AI. Artillery and Subs, all the way. Tanks and to a less extend airplanes need a buff.

_____________________________

AGEOD Team - Lead Developer
Makers of Empires, ACW2, EAW, WIA, WON

(in reply to shri)
Post #: 7
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/18/2021 5:19:30 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 3858
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pocus

I'm seeing the same trend, playing a SP game against veteran level AI. Artillery and Subs, all the way. Tanks and to a less extend airplanes need a buff.


What trend are you seeing? What about artillery and subs?

_____________________________


(in reply to Pocus)
Post #: 8
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/18/2021 5:47:28 AM   
Pocus


Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/22/2004
Status: offline
You'll want to maximize their efficiency and number, they are so darn good compared to other units. Artilleries on land will allow to smash corps and take hexes reliably. Subs, are general pain in the rear at sea, acting as super scouters, road blocks (paradoxically, them doing convoy raiding seems their secondary mission here). As Entente, you must go into ASW, because CP will go into better subs. Hey, even Entente should go into better Subs! They rule the sea. As Artillery rules the land. Forget about tanks or planes. Well, forget until you have the best artillery possible, they are much less game-changers.

_____________________________

AGEOD Team - Lead Developer
Makers of Empires, ACW2, EAW, WIA, WON

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 9
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/18/2021 6:16:44 AM   
ThisEndUp

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 6/24/2020
Status: offline
I should clarify that I usually play MP games.

Submarines are mostly a CP tool. Buffing them would be an indirect buff to the CP, since it will result in greater losses to British convoys, than German convoys. However, I do not see an issue with this one. The naval war as it is currently is so one sided, it ceases to be an engaging part of the game. The fact that it alters balance, however, should still be kept in mind.

Artillery units are an important weapon for both sides, but are noticeably more important for the Entente than the CP. Reducing their power, while called for, would also weaken the Entente considerably for 2 reasons: number of artillery units available and infantry quality.

Currently the Entente can field a theoretical maximum of 5 British guns, 3 French guns, 2 Italian guns, 1 Serbian gun, 1 Greek gun, 1 Belgian gun, 1 Romanian gun, and 4 Russian guns, for a total of 18 artillery units. The extra British and Russian guns come from decision events, which allow you to exceed the build limit if you have already hit it when it fires. Realistically of course, The Serbian, Belgian, and Italian guns won't show up until late in the war, if ever. Romania may not even be dragged in. So we usually see about 12-13 artillery units for the Entente, with a worst case scenario of 10. This compared to the 11 maximum guns the CP can field (GE:4, AH:3, OE:3, BU:1), is a fairly significant advantage, especially when considering that Ottoman artillery also arrives relatively late.

With weaker artillery, there will be a stronger emphasis on the infantry. German infantry are significantly stronger than the Entente counterparts, due to better tech, better leaders, better experience, and better NM. This makes them less reliant on artillery on the attack. They can get away with firing just enough shells to full de-entrench their target to achieve excellent 1:3/4 combat results. The Entente require more shells to reduce their targets readiness and morale, often needing 6-8 shots on a single target in 1915 just to achieve a parity of losses on the offensive.

Both of these factors mean that weaker artillery hurts the Entente far more.

Changes to Trento and Bulgaria would also make things easier for the CP.

While these changes are, I think, good improvements, they all shift the balance towards the CP. My argument is not that the changes are bad per se, but that implementing too many changes that balance things in only in one direction would make things a little too hard for the Entente.

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 10
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/18/2021 6:37:01 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 3858
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp

I should clarify that I usually play MP games.

Submarines are mostly a CP tool. Buffing them would be an indirect buff to the CP, since it will result in greater losses to British convoys, than German convoys. However, I do not see an issue with this one. The naval war as it is currently is so one sided, it ceases to be an engaging part of the game. The fact that it alters balance, however, should still be kept in mind.

Artillery units are an important weapon for both sides, but are noticeably more important for the Entente than the CP. Reducing their power, while called for, would also weaken the Entente considerably for 2 reasons: number of artillery units available and infantry quality.

Currently the Entente can field a theoretical maximum of 5 British guns, 3 French guns, 2 Italian guns, 1 Serbian gun, 1 Greek gun, 1 Belgian gun, 1 Romanian gun, and 4 Russian guns, for a total of 18 artillery units. The extra British and Russian guns come from decision events, which allow you to exceed the build limit if you have already hit it when it fires. Realistically of course, The Serbian, Belgian, and Italian guns won't show up until late in the war, if ever. Romania may not even be dragged in. So we usually see about 12-13 artillery units for the Entente, with a worst case scenario of 10. This compared to the 11 maximum guns the CP can field (GE:4, AH:3, OE:3, BU:1), is a fairly significant advantage, especially when considering that Ottoman artillery also arrives relatively late.

With weaker artillery, there will be a stronger emphasis on the infantry. German infantry are significantly stronger than the Entente counterparts, due to better tech, better leaders, better experience, and better NM. This makes them less reliant on artillery on the attack. They can get away with firing just enough shells to full de-entrench their target to achieve excellent 1:3/4 combat results. The Entente require more shells to reduce their targets readiness and morale, often needing 6-8 shots on a single target in 1915 just to achieve a parity of losses on the offensive.

Both of these factors mean that weaker artillery hurts the Entente far more.

Changes to Trento and Bulgaria would also make things easier for the CP.

While these changes are, I think, good improvements, they all shift the balance towards the CP. My argument is not that the changes are bad per se, but that implementing too many changes that balance things in only in one direction would make things a little too hard for the Entente.


Thanks for clarifying!

Glad you agree on Subs and the naval situation.

Damn I wish I could get 11 artillery as CP! The most I've gotten is 6! I am completely blown away by Entente artillery! Haha

I disagree that the Germans only need a few shots with their artillery. As Old Crow will attest that did not do me much good until I learned to save shells up...

I am neutral on Trento as I don't consider myself much of an expert on the history of that...

You believe the Bulgarian Gambit should be allowed?

Have you won MP games as CP?

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 1/18/2021 6:38:35 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to ThisEndUp)
Post #: 11
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/18/2021 6:41:15 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 3858
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pocus

You'll want to maximize their efficiency and number, they are so darn good compared to other units. Artilleries on land will allow to smash corps and take hexes reliably. Subs, are general pain in the rear at sea, acting as super scouters, road blocks (paradoxically, them doing convoy raiding seems their secondary mission here). As Entente, you must go into ASW, because CP will go into better subs. Hey, even Entente should go into better Subs! They rule the sea. As Artillery rules the land. Forget about tanks or planes. Well, forget until you have the best artillery possible, they are much less game-changers.


Agree on Artillery being overpowered. Disagree on Subs being overpowered. Yes historically CP had better subs...What rules the sea is the Allied Naval Hordes of Death!

_____________________________


(in reply to Pocus)
Post #: 12
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/18/2021 10:05:53 AM   
ThisEndUp

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 6/24/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp

I should clarify that I usually play MP games.

Submarines are mostly a CP tool. Buffing them would be an indirect buff to the CP, since it will result in greater losses to British convoys, than German convoys. However, I do not see an issue with this one. The naval war as it is currently is so one sided, it ceases to be an engaging part of the game. The fact that it alters balance, however, should still be kept in mind.

Artillery units are an important weapon for both sides, but are noticeably more important for the Entente than the CP. Reducing their power, while called for, would also weaken the Entente considerably for 2 reasons: number of artillery units available and infantry quality.

Currently the Entente can field a theoretical maximum of 5 British guns, 3 French guns, 2 Italian guns, 1 Serbian gun, 1 Greek gun, 1 Belgian gun, 1 Romanian gun, and 4 Russian guns, for a total of 18 artillery units. The extra British and Russian guns come from decision events, which allow you to exceed the build limit if you have already hit it when it fires. Realistically of course, The Serbian, Belgian, and Italian guns won't show up until late in the war, if ever. Romania may not even be dragged in. So we usually see about 12-13 artillery units for the Entente, with a worst case scenario of 10. This compared to the 11 maximum guns the CP can field (GE:4, AH:3, OE:3, BU:1), is a fairly significant advantage, especially when considering that Ottoman artillery also arrives relatively late.

With weaker artillery, there will be a stronger emphasis on the infantry. German infantry are significantly stronger than the Entente counterparts, due to better tech, better leaders, better experience, and better NM. This makes them less reliant on artillery on the attack. They can get away with firing just enough shells to full de-entrench their target to achieve excellent 1:3/4 combat results. The Entente require more shells to reduce their targets readiness and morale, often needing 6-8 shots on a single target in 1915 just to achieve a parity of losses on the offensive.

Both of these factors mean that weaker artillery hurts the Entente far more.

Changes to Trento and Bulgaria would also make things easier for the CP.

While these changes are, I think, good improvements, they all shift the balance towards the CP. My argument is not that the changes are bad per se, but that implementing too many changes that balance things in only in one direction would make things a little too hard for the Entente.


Thanks for clarifying!

Glad you agree on Subs and the naval situation.

Damn I wish I could get 11 artillery as CP! The most I've gotten is 6! I am completely blown away by Entente artillery! Haha

I disagree that the Germans only need a few shots with their artillery. As Old Crow will attest that did not do me much good until I learned to save shells up...

I am neutral on Trento as I don't consider myself much of an expert on the history of that...

You believe the Bulgarian Gambit should be allowed?

Have you won MP games as CP?



I have been playing since July and so far I have been undefeated on the field, CP included. I have a fairly even number of games as both CP and Entente, but I felt that the CP was easier because my wins with them tend to be more 'total'.

With regards to Bulgaria, I think they shouldn't fall so easily, but altering their forces would throw off the current balance. A secondary capital in the east should be more than sufficient to prevent a premature capitulation imo. I do not think any more is necessary.

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 13
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/18/2021 10:17:06 AM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 732
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp

I should clarify that I usually play MP games.

Submarines are mostly a CP tool. Buffing them would be an indirect buff to the CP, since it will result in greater losses to British convoys, than German convoys. However, I do not see an issue with this one. The naval war as it is currently is so one sided, it ceases to be an engaging part of the game. The fact that it alters balance, however, should still be kept in mind.

Artillery units are an important weapon for both sides, but are noticeably more important for the Entente than the CP. Reducing their power, while called for, would also weaken the Entente considerably for 2 reasons: number of artillery units available and infantry quality.

Currently the Entente can field a theoretical maximum of 5 British guns, 3 French guns, 2 Italian guns, 1 Serbian gun, 1 Greek gun, 1 Belgian gun, 1 Romanian gun, and 4 Russian guns, for a total of 18 artillery units. The extra British and Russian guns come from decision events, which allow you to exceed the build limit if you have already hit it when it fires. Realistically of course, The Serbian, Belgian, and Italian guns won't show up until late in the war, if ever. Romania may not even be dragged in. So we usually see about 12-13 artillery units for the Entente, with a worst case scenario of 10. This compared to the 11 maximum guns the CP can field (GE:4, AH:3, OE:3, BU:1), is a fairly significant advantage, especially when considering that Ottoman artillery also arrives relatively late.

With weaker artillery, there will be a stronger emphasis on the infantry. German infantry are significantly stronger than the Entente counterparts, due to better tech, better leaders, better experience, and better NM. This makes them less reliant on artillery on the attack. They can get away with firing just enough shells to full de-entrench their target to achieve excellent 1:3/4 combat results. The Entente require more shells to reduce their targets readiness and morale, often needing 6-8 shots on a single target in 1915 just to achieve a parity of losses on the offensive.

Both of these factors mean that weaker artillery hurts the Entente far more.

Changes to Trento and Bulgaria would also make things easier for the CP.

While these changes are, I think, good improvements, they all shift the balance towards the CP. My argument is not that the changes are bad per se, but that implementing too many changes that balance things in only in one direction would make things a little too hard for the Entente.


Well, since I also mostly play MP games as you well know, including 4 memorable matches against you (one ongoing). I basically agree with what you are saying here. I think any changes made need to be considered carefully, and it does seem to look that some of these may unbalance PvP towards the Germans in particular.

I have also noticed that good quality German infantry has an easier time mid to late game in conducting operations sans artillery as opposed to Entente forces on the whole. Lately, I have been playing only Entente in matches, and having good artillery sure helps defend the Western front.

With the Artillery chit reduction, it seems to have helped extend the game further in a close match. I have only one game going post patch..and it is against Tanaka. We are mid 1917, and though strategically the Entente finally got into a more favorable position because of an Ottoman collapse, his Germans are able to trash the Russians when he wishes, and make huge trouble on the western front aka Ludendorff.

The modest changes I feel are necessary at this time are:

1)Trento: Made into a fortress.
2)Bulgaria: shift already deployed units onto different hexes to thwart 1 turn alpha strike.I think the dev's are considering this according to a recent post on the 2nd Bulgaria thread.

I personally really like the latest patch taking one chit from Artillery research. It has allowed me to actually consider broadening other research that was neglected back in the days of 'Race to Art2 1915).

The shell thing is complex..but maybe removing one chit from their research may also moderate the excessive shell stockpileage that occurs. Having 10 shells is okay...but maybe if that arrives further out..like spring 1917 on or something, would also allow an extension of the game to late 1918, something that right now is very rare in a PM with evenly skilled opponents.

The Ottoman early game situation is also complex. Possibly, if they were given a few garrison units like the Russians have had Odessa, Sebastopol and other places..this may ameliorate their vulnerabilities. These units have very little offensive power, but would help resist an Entente detachment raid that now can cripple the Ottomans.
Jerusalem and Damascus come to mind. More than 2 garrisons would probably be too much, and too easy to cover the partisan hex spawning grounds. (I don't know if garrison units can be 'turned off' so they can't stop partisan spawning or not in the editor but if they 'couldn't' that would be ok. Then again, maybe a solution to Ottoman early game weakness, is not needed.

Anyway, ThisEndUp....that's my 3 cents.

(in reply to ThisEndUp)
Post #: 14
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/18/2021 3:22:30 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp
5 British guns, 4 Russian guns


I was wondering about this. Build limits are 4 for UK and 3 for Russia but those don't matter if you purchase an arty early enough. Unfortunately the Central Powers have no way to increase their arty counts beyond their build limits like the Entente do because they get none of these pieces through event. I believe that last British gun comes pretty late in the Middle East, but still the ability to get more guns beyond the build limits is pretty insane. Is this something the developers intended?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp
1 Belgian gun


I experimented with buying a Belgian artillery very early as UK, but when Belgium surrendered the artillery disappeared from my build queue.

Outside of that building beyond limits issue, I think the # of guns is balanced considering the Serbian and Greek guns will probably never see the light of day unless the Centrals screw up (assuming the Greek gun disappears from any build queue once Greece surrenders).

(in reply to ThisEndUp)
Post #: 15
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/18/2021 3:54:31 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
If we are going to talk Entente weaknesses then I think Italy needs some kind of defensive enhancement like starting with a chit researching Trench Warfare level 1. In my limited experience Italy really struggles to defend on their own and French or British reinforcements are required. This fact may not be unbalancing as the Austrians do have to commit more of their forces to Italy than they did historically in order to advance, but the fact that the NM objectives are so close and kind of in a salient (the geometry favors the Central Powers) makes it difficult for Italy to hold on to their NM objectives. I was experimenting with editing the terrain to add an extra river and town in NE Italy in order to make it easier to defend there.

I also believe Serbia could use a slightly stronger defensive setup. It's really easy to push them back past Nish immediately especially if you rail down extra corps. Again it's impossible to completely guarantee balance in the long term here as there's no limit to the number of units the Centrals can throw against Serbia should they choose to do so. The only balancing factor is Russian pressure against Austria. But I do think Serbia could use a small defensive setup boost to prevent an early collapse. Even something small like +25 MPP in the starting bank would be quite useful.

I also have found that Greece is easy to conquer. Historically French and UK units were showing up at Salonika even before Greece really entered the war. I think it would be nice to give the Entente more time to ship units to Greece should they so choose (it's also difficult to know in advance exactly in how many turns Greece will join unless you are an expert who reads event files). Perhaps a special event could give UK/France the option to move in a bit earlier (and warn the Central Powers when this happens to give them a heads up).

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 16
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/18/2021 5:18:22 PM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 732
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

If we are going to talk Entente weaknesses then I think Italy needs some kind of defensive enhancement like starting with a chit researching Trench Warfare level 1. In my limited experience Italy really struggles to defend on their own and French or British reinforcements are required. This fact may not be unbalancing as the Austrians do have to commit more of their forces to Italy than they did historically in order to advance, but the fact that the NM objectives are so close and kind of in a salient (the geometry favors the Central Powers) makes it difficult for Italy to hold on to their NM objectives. I was experimenting with editing the terrain to add an extra river and town in NE Italy in order to make it easier to defend there.

I also believe Serbia could use a slightly stronger defensive setup. It's really easy to push them back past Nish immediately especially if you rail down extra corps. Again it's impossible to completely guarantee balance in the long term here as there's no limit to the number of units the Centrals can throw against Serbia should they choose to do so. The only balancing factor is Russian pressure against Austria. But I do think Serbia could use a small defensive setup boost to prevent an early collapse. Even something small like +25 MPP in the starting bank would be quite useful.

I also have found that Greece is easy to conquer. Historically French and UK units were showing up at Salonika even before Greece really entered the war. I think it would be nice to give the Entente more time to ship units to Greece should they so choose (it's also difficult to know in advance exactly in how many turns Greece will join unless you are an expert who reads event files). Perhaps a special event could give UK/France the option to move in a bit earlier (and warn the Central Powers when this happens to give them a heads up).


Regarding Italy in 1915..yep, they could really use a chit in Trench Warefare 1. They are totally vulnerable to an attack on Udine and beyond in 1915, especially if Germans are involved...and it wont take but a handful of corps, an arty 1 and HQ..and possibly a cavalry unit. Some kind of aircraft also to spot and not get an ambush during a push also.

Serbia could use a little extra money...and your right, since the Central Powers enjoy 'Interior Lines', if the they get a breather on other fronts, a task force of Germans can really tear up the Serbs.

Greece, big Yes, there needs some tuning here..at least with MP matches. Greece falls way to easy under the guns of the CP once Serbia falls..which is ahistorical. I've actually sent loads of troops there only for them to get picked off one by one on the road down to Athens. A earlier option for the Salonika area for Entente forces to assemble would be good. I don't know if it was you, but someone had another idea of an Entente enclave around Salonika..politically separate maybe or something on those lines based on a Decision and/or Event. Anyway, in PM's, a couple of times I lost Greece way too easy because the CP just rolled on down after Uskub..and not with very many units either while accompanied with an artillery unit and some cavalry.

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 17
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/18/2021 5:26:54 PM   
Patrat


Posts: 107
Joined: 11/17/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

I also have found that Greece is easy to conquer. Historically French and UK units were showing up at Salonika even before Greece really entered the war. I think it would be nice to give the Entente more time to ship units to Greece should they so choose (it's also difficult to know in advance exactly in how many turns Greece will join unless you are an expert who reads event files). Perhaps a special event could give UK/France the option to move in a bit earlier (and warn the Central Powers when this happens to give them a heads up).



When I first played the game I was surprised there was no Salonika event that allowed allied units to land in the area even with Greece neutral. Because, as you mentioned, that is exactly what happened IRL

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 18
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/19/2021 12:32:11 PM   
ThisEndUp

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 6/24/2020
Status: offline
Thanks for the responses everyone.

quote:

The Ottoman early game situation is also complex. Possibly, if they were given a few garrison units like the Russians have had Odessa, Sebastopol and other places..this may ameliorate their vulnerabilities. These units have very little offensive power, but would help resist an Entente detachment raid that now can cripple the Ottomans.
Jerusalem and Damascus come to mind. More than 2 garrisons would probably be too much, and too easy to cover the partisan hex spawning grounds. (I don't know if garrison units can be 'turned off' so they can't stop partisan spawning or not in the editor but if they 'couldn't' that would be ok. Then again, maybe a solution to Ottoman early game weakness, is not needed.


I have not really felt that the Ottomans are exceptionally weak over there. Perhaps I have yet to meet an opponent that aggressive in the near east, but the forces the Ottomans have in the beginning are certainly sufficient for an energetic early victory in Mesopotamia. With the rail link between AH and OE set up by mid 1915, there is little threat that can come from Egypt. The Caucuses is a little harder, but losses there are not fatal.

quote:

I was wondering about this. Build limits are 4 for UK and 3 for Russia but those don't matter if you purchase an arty early enough. Unfortunately the Central Powers have no way to increase their arty counts beyond their build limits like the Entente do because they get none of these pieces through event. I believe that last British gun comes pretty late in the Middle East, but still the ability to get more guns beyond the build limits is pretty insane. Is this something the developers intended?


Perhaps. However there is also the risk of permanently losing a piece if your oppoenent's blade is sharp enough to thrust through your lines and eliminates one of them. If that happens, that 300 odd MPP expenditure is wasted, so I still think that it's quite balanced. Although this does have me wondering how balanced the game is with soft build limits.

quote:

Outside of that building beyond limits issue, I think the # of guns is balanced considering the Serbian and Greek guns will probably never see the light of day unless the Centrals screw up (assuming the Greek gun disappears from any build queue once Greece surrenders).


Units in queue disappear when it surrenders. However, is it possible to build it quickly enough such that you can ship it out before Greece collapses? Would the artillery unit surrender as well, or fight on?

quote:

I also have found that Greece is easy to conquer. Historically French and UK units were showing up at Salonika even before Greece really entered the war. I think it would be nice to give the Entente more time to ship units to Greece should they so choose (it's also difficult to know in advance exactly in how many turns Greece will join unless you are an expert who reads event files). Perhaps a special event could give UK/France the option to move in a bit earlier (and warn the Central Powers when this happens to give them a heads up).


quote:

Greece, big Yes, there needs some tuning here..at least with MP matches. Greece falls way to easy under the guns of the CP once Serbia falls..which is ahistorical. I've actually sent loads of troops there only for them to get picked off one by one on the road down to Athens. A earlier option for the Salonika area for Entente forces to assemble would be good. I don't know if it was you, but someone had another idea of an Entente enclave around Salonika..politically separate maybe or something on those lines based on a Decision and/or Event. Anyway, in PM's, a couple of times I lost Greece way too easy because the CP just rolled on down after Uskub..and not with very many units either while accompanied with an artillery unit and some cavalry.


I think the biggest problem with defending Greece is the lack of supply. Giving them a HQ unit or making Athens a primary supply center would go a long way to making it hold longer without chaging things too significantly, I think.




(in reply to Patrat)
Post #: 19
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/19/2021 6:28:46 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp
I have not really felt that the Ottomans are exceptionally weak over there.

it's quite balanced.

Giving them a HQ unit or making Athens a primary supply center


I agree that the Ottoman land situation is okay. I don't like the Russian sub in the Black Sea which can simply exchange damage for ruining the Ottoman mine at Zonguldak. Historically Russian sub attacks on this route were limited and the Russian subs were usually of inferior quality (2 external torpedoes total on some of these obsolete subs). So I would be in favor of weakening that sub. But as far as the Ottoman land situation goes, it's SUPPOSED to be a little hairy for the Ottomans. I haven't seen any evidence that the micro-landing attacks are necessarily even worth it for the Entente. The Caucasus front is a liability for the Centrals where they are trying to limit the damage and delay an advance. But I think that's fine. It wouldn't be good if the Ottoman situation started off too secure. I also think the difficult Ottoman starting situation adds an urgency to the Serbia campaign which is a good thing for the game, since defeating Serbia is the #1 way to help the Ottomans.

As for the extra artillery pieces UK/Russia (can France possibly do this too?) can purchase beyond build limits, I understand there is some opportunity cost and you may be partial to it but in my opinion this is an exploit that goes too far.

I checked Greece and Athens, Salonika Corfu and Heraklion are already primary supply centers in the editor. I think a starting Greek HQ makes sense, perhaps commanded by Danglis (3) and upgradable to Paraskevopoulos (5)

< Message edited by Chernobyl -- 1/19/2021 6:39:19 PM >

(in reply to ThisEndUp)
Post #: 20
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/30/2021 8:58:24 AM   
ThisEndUp

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 6/24/2020
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

As for the extra artillery pieces UK/Russia (can France possibly do this too?) can purchase beyond build limits, I understand there is some opportunity cost and you may be partial to it but in my opinion this is an exploit that goes too far.

I checked Greece and Athens, Salonika Corfu and Heraklion are already primary supply centers in the editor. I think a starting Greek HQ makes sense, perhaps commanded by Danglis (3) and upgradable to Paraskevopoulos (5)


I am actually starting to get quite partial to the soft building limits for this game. Not sure how balanced it is, but I greatly appreciate the added flexibility.

As for Greece, they don't seem to work as primary supply centers. When Serbia falls, all resources in Greece immediately fall to 5, and remain that way until you can push back up and retake the Serbian capital. This makes it quite impossible to defend without a HQ. Is this a bug then?

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 21
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/30/2021 9:44:43 AM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 732
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline
The Greek resource and supply situation upon the fall of Serbia is a bit odd as you say illustrated..but I have only witnessed it once...in our match where I was the Entente months ago..(The same one where you partially dismantled the Royal Navy in the early winter of 1914 and tore through Serbia like the Huns haha)...so I can't exactly remember what went wrong in Greece..but it went wrong fast for me. Supply sucked!


(in reply to ThisEndUp)
Post #: 22
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/30/2021 6:35:57 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
That sounds right to me. The Greek units defending their country always are in a pathetic state. They need their supply and a HQ too.

Can someone confirm that Greek cities are not reaching full strength?

Looking at the editor, I suspected that perhaps Greece suffers from lower maximum values for cities/towns kind of like how the Ottomans have uniquely weak cities, but this isn't the case. Their cities have a max strength of 10. Then I checked "occupational efficiency" but that isn't the problem either as Greece actually has 100% which is higher than most majors which only get 80%.

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)
Post #: 23
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/30/2021 6:42:26 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp
soft building limits
Not sure how balanced it is


Perhaps it could work if the +MPP% were increased considerably from the +10% it is by default. Like say to +40%. Do soft build limits scale independently for minor allies? E.g. do you get separate build costs for Germany and Bulgaria or are they linked?

(in reply to ThisEndUp)
Post #: 24
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/30/2021 10:11:00 PM   
mdsmall

 

Posts: 423
Joined: 4/28/2020
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Can someone confirm that Greek cities are not reaching full strength?

Looking at the editor, I suspected that perhaps Greece suffers from lower maximum values for cities/towns kind of like how the Ottomans have uniquely weak cities, but this isn't the case. Their cities have a max strength of 10. Then I checked "occupational efficiency" but that isn't the problem either as Greece actually has 100% which is higher than most majors which only get 80%.


The explanation is that Capitals or Primary Supply Centers that belong to Minor powers do not intrinsically get the maximum supply level for those urban resources. They also have to be connected by rail to a Capital, Primary Supply Center or Industrial Center of a friendly Major. As long as Serbia is still in the game as a friendly Major and controls one of their Capitals, Greek cities connected by rail to that capital will get their fully supply values. Once Serbia falls, all the Greek cities will have a maximum supply of only 5, either due to having a rail connection back to Athens and/or because they are beside a 5 level port. For more details, see my earlier thread on "understanding supply".

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 25
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/30/2021 10:43:52 PM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 732
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdsmall


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

Can someone confirm that Greek cities are not reaching full strength?

Looking at the editor, I suspected that perhaps Greece suffers from lower maximum values for cities/towns kind of like how the Ottomans have uniquely weak cities, but this isn't the case. Their cities have a max strength of 10. Then I checked "occupational efficiency" but that isn't the problem either as Greece actually has 100% which is higher than most majors which only get 80%.


The explanation is that Capitals or Primary Supply Centers that belong to Minor powers do not intrinsically get the maximum supply level for those urban resources. They also have to be connected by rail to a Capital, Primary Supply Center or Industrial Center of a friendly Major. As long as Serbia is still in the game as a friendly Major and controls one of their Capitals, Greek cities connected by rail to that capital will get their fully supply values. Once Serbia falls, all the Greek cities will have a maximum supply of only 5, either due to having a rail connection back to Athens and/or because they are beside a 5 level port. For more details, see my earlier thread on "understanding supply".


Thanks mdsmall! Also..if I didn't already, thanks for that comprehensive guide you put out...
Understanding supply as represented in this game is essential, and the other two SC titles as well.

This understanding now leads to the question about if Greece should be so reliant on Serbia's survival or not. As it stands...since Greece is a minor...Serbia is essential. I don't see any other way to strengthen Greece..and its probably not desirable. The Entente will just have to do all they can to keep at least Uskub (usually the last Serbian capital) from being taken by the Central Powers.

(in reply to mdsmall)
Post #: 26
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/30/2021 11:07:36 PM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
The Entente can't keep Serbia alive until Greece joins. Or to put it another way, if Serbia is still holding on by October 1915, the Entente is in amazing shape if they haven't already won the game.

Right now Greece is so weak that the optimal play for the Entente might even be to keep Greece neutral. When I conquer Greece I usually give it to the Ottomans for an economic boost. Yes it is slightly annoying to find the units to send to Greece, but you really don't need very many to conquer them. A HQ, one artillery, 2-3 corps and some detachments and cavalry are more than enough to obliterate the Greeks with almost no delay or losses.

Now I'm not sure how defend-able Greece might be if the British send a HQ, some corps, and an artillery. But for this to work Greece would need full strength cities. If their cities are truly stuck at strength=5 then that's not good enough.

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)
Post #: 27
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/30/2021 11:16:44 PM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 732
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

The Entente can't keep Serbia alive until Greece joins. Or to put it another way, if Serbia is still holding on by October 1915, the Entente is in amazing shape if they haven't already won the game.

Right now Greece is so weak that the optimal play for the Entente might even be to keep Greece neutral. When I conquer Greece I usually give it to the Ottomans for an economic boost. Yes it is slightly annoying to find the units to send to Greece, but you really don't need very many to conquer them. A HQ, one artillery, 2-3 corps and some detachments and cavalry are more than enough to obliterate the Greeks with almost no delay or losses.

Now I'm not sure how defend-able Greece might be if the British send a HQ, some corps, and an artillery. But for this to work Greece would need full strength cities. If their cities are truly stuck at strength=5 then that's not good enough.


I have sent a British HQ and arty to Greece...but if Salonika falls, it all over for Greece...at least the times it happened to me in two different MP's.

Which makes me wonder again with the idea that as been floated to make the Salonika area some kind of enclave of the Entente at a certain time..with Big Power status and an Industrial Center to generate the supply needed to hold the Greco-Serbian frontier. At least..the line could possibly be held as it was historically. Just throwing that out there....

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 28
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/31/2021 1:43:44 AM   
Chernobyl

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor
I have sent a British HQ and arty to Greece...but if Salonika falls, it all over for Greece...at least the times it happened to me in two different MP's.


What's wrong with defending south of Salonika? There are some nice mountains with roads on them in the middle of Greece.

I feel it might be difficult to set up a defense quickly enough though. You need to have the units land on the exact correct turn and then immediately move to form a defensive line. The Centrals can occupy quite a bit of territory immediately if they rail some attachments and cavalry to Albania and south Serbia the turn before (which I do).

< Message edited by Chernobyl -- 1/31/2021 1:44:22 AM >

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)
Post #: 29
RE: CP and Entente Game Balance - 1/31/2021 2:42:37 AM   
OldCrowBalthazor


Posts: 732
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor
I have sent a British HQ and arty to Greece...but if Salonika falls, it all over for Greece...at least the times it happened to me in two different MP's.


What's wrong with defending south of Salonika? There are some nice mountains with roads on them in the middle of Greece.

I feel it might be difficult to set up a defense quickly enough though. You need to have the units land on the exact correct turn and then immediately move to form a defensive line. The Centrals can occupy quite a bit of territory immediately if they rail some attachments and cavalry to Albania and south Serbia the turn before (which I do).


There's nothing wrong with it, as long as the Entente (esp the UK) has a planned commitment to Greece prior to Serbia's fall. The two times I lost Greece rapidly in a MP...UK forces were heavily involved in other theaters..though I had what I thought was a reasonable presence in and around Salonika.

When CP artillery came up..that place fell...and though I put together a scratch force of French and UK units together and sent them into Athens and Kalamata..they came in willy-nilly and strung out. Mainland Greece fell quickly..though I got something in Corfu and Crete and had Mudros.

It was Salonika that was the keystone that collapsed..a major tactical victory in both matches for my opponents.

I just remembered the collapse of Greece vividly...and wondered if it would have historically. Probably so..since it was in a quasi-civil war through most of WW1.

< Message edited by OldCrowBalthazor -- 1/31/2021 2:19:42 PM >

(in reply to Chernobyl)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command: World War I >> CP and Entente Game Balance Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.335